Antennas and Waves Communication Engineering

Weed-.ScienceAn the.
Asian-Pacific Region
Chapter 4
Weeds and Weed Management in India - A Review

A.N. Rao1and B.S. Chauhan2
’■'Visiting Scientist, ICRISAT Development Center and International Rice Research Institute; International
Crop Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, Hyderabad 502324, India; 2The Centre
for Plant Science, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI), The University of
Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia. Êmail: anraojayal@gmail.com)
(Received 13 April 2015)
Abstract: India has a wide range of agroclimates and soil types. The highly diverse agriculture and
fanning systems are beset with different types of weed problems. Weeds cause 10-80% crop yield losses
besides impairing product quality and causing health and environmental hazards. Invasive alien weeds
are a major constraint to agriculture, forestry and aquatic environment. Crop-specific problematic weeds
(weedy rice in rice) are emerging as a threat to cultivation, affecting crop production, quality of product
and income of farmers. Traditionally, weed control in India has been .largely dependent on manual
weeding. However, increased labour scarcity and costs are encouraging farmers to adopt labour and cost-
saving options. These include herbicides whose market grew at an annual rate of 15%. Integrated weed
management (IWM) is being practiced by Indian farmers, with the level of adoption varying from one
farm to the other. The continuous application of isoproturon coupled with mono-cropping rotation of rice-
wheat has led to the evolution of resistance in Phalaris minor Retz. In the northern part of India. Efforts
to manage herbicide resistance have led to the adoption of conservation agriculture in the rice-wheat
cropping system, as a component of IWM.
Research on weed management in India is mostly centred on herbicide efficacy. Herbicides, applied
alone or in combinations, have been regarded as essential tools in the effective management of weeds in
different-ecosystems. IWM, which includes preventative, mechanical, cultural, chemical and biological
methods, is advocated in crop production systems as well as aquatic and forest ecosystems. Herbicide-
resistant (HR) transgenic crops have the potential to improve the weed management efficiency and
facilitate adoption of CA in India, provided the risks associated with such crops are examined in detail,
prior to their adoption and commercialization. Newer weed management approaches must be developed
considering the threat of HR weeds appearance in addition to the recurrence and persistence of weeds
and the need to bring down weed management costs to enhance profit for farmers while protecting the
environment. Understanding weed-ecology and-biology_and.using_infoimatioxLtechnoiogy, should be part
of developing and disseminating effective, economical and ecologically advantageous IWM strategies in
India. Detailed review of weeds and weed management' options of the past, present and future in India is
made in this chapter.
Key words: Weeds, India, hand weeding, preventive methods, cultural methods, biological control,
herbicides, resistance, conservation agriculture, integrated weed management.
Introduction
India is located to the north of the equator between 8° 4' and 37° 6' N latitudes-and between
68° 1' and 97° 25' E longitudes. She is the seventh largest country in the world and the second
largest in Asia, with a land area of about 15,200 km and a coastline of 7,516 km. India measures
3,214 km from north to south and 2,933 km from east'to west. Agriculture continues to be the
backbone of the Indian economy as it employs 54.6% of the total work force. The total share
87
of agriculture and its allied sectors (including the livestock, forestry and fishery sub-sectors)
to the gross domestic product was 13.9% in 2013-14. Out of India’s total cropped area of 192
million ha, less than one-half is under irrigation. The Indian agricultural production system has:a
challenge to feedl7.5% of the global population with only 2.4% of land and 4% of the available
water resources at its disposal.
- .• India, bestowed with heterogeneous landforms and diverse climatic conditions, comprises
lofty mountains, riverine deltas, high altitude forests, peninsular plateaus and various other
geological formations. The country also experiences a wide range of temperatures-varying
from arctic cold to equatorial hot-and rainfall from extreme aridity (< 10. cm y r 1) to extreme
humidity, with some areas recording the world’s highest rainfall (1,120 cm). India has high
plateau, open valleys, rolling upland, plains, swampy low lands and barren deserts. Depending
upon soil, bio-climate and physiography, the country has 20 agro-eco regions and 60 agro-
eco-subregions. Each agro-eco-subregion has further been classified into agro-eco-uni-ts at the
district level for developing long term land use strategies [Gajbhiye and Mandal 2006]. Each of
the agro-ecological regions and crops grown has distinct weed problems [Rao et al. 2014],
Eversince the Green Revolution, beginning the 1960s, Indian rice and wheat systems have
been playing a critical role in the global food economy. The food, primarily rice, produced by
India supports the local population of 1.25 billion besides other millions of people in Asian and
African countries by way of exports [Bumeya and Ramanathan 2014]. India has set a growth
target of 4% for the agriculture sector during the. 12th Plan period of 2012-2017 [Planning
Commission 2013]. However, growth in agriculture and allied sectors is expected to be .o,nly
1.1% in 2014-15, down from 3.7% in 2013-14, due to the impact of low southwest monsoon
on both kharif (monsoon: Apr-Oct) and rabi (winter: Nov-Mar) harvests. This emphasizes the
need for constant efforts to increase crop productivity and production to meet the demands of
increasing population by developing and-extending dimate-resi-Men-t-techno-log-ies-fora-grrctcltaral
and horticultural crops. Such efforts must take into consideration management of weeds, which
adapt well to grow in both unfavourable and favourable environments and cause yield and
quality loss, while competing with crops for resources [Rao and Nagamani 2010].
India is the world’s second largest producer of rice, wheat and cotton after China; and the
second largest producer of sugarcane, after Brazil. It is also the second largest global producer of
horticultural products. Moreover, India is the world’s second largest importer of vegetable oils
besides being the largest producer, consumer and importer of pulses (grain legumes). However,
productivity of these crops is far. lower than that of developed countries and China (Table 1).
To meet the demands of an increasing population and avoid food imports, crop productivity
in India needs major improvements, which can be attained by identifying the constraints that
hinder fanners in achieving high yields.
Weed Science in the Asian-Pacific Region
Table 1. Global comparison of area, production and yield of principal crops.*.
Area Production Yield !'i Proiliii-iimi

Country
i million ha) (million lomu-M (tonnes ha ]) jg (% of world) '
Rice
World 163.46 718.35 4.39 100
China 30.56 206.09 6.74 28.69
India 42.50 152.60 3.59 21.24
Indonesia 13.44 69.05 . 5.14 9.61
Bangladesh 11.70 34.20 2.92 ,. 4.76
Vietnam 7.75 43.66 5.63 . 6.08
Wheat
World 216.64 674.88 3.12 100
China 24.14 120.58 5.00 17.87
India 29.90 94.88 3.17 14.06
Russia 21.28 37.72 1.77 5.59
U.S.A. 19.83 61.76 3.11 ■9.15 -
Maize
World 176.99 875.10 4.94 100.
USA 35.36 273.83 7.74 31.29
China 34.97 208.26 5.96 23.80
Brazil 14.23 71.30 5.01 8:15
Mexico _ 6.9.2 22.07 3.19 2.52'
Indonesia ’ 3.96 19.38 4.89 2.21
India 8.40 21.06 2.51 2.41
Sugarcane ^
World- ■25.16 i 773V8 3. 68-85 .... “ TOO"'
Brazil 9.41 670.76 r 71.30 -37.81- "
India 5.09 , ' ’347.87 68,34 - . 19.61" '
China 1.8 124.17 ; 68.81 7.00 • - '
Thailand 1.3 96.5 74.23 1 5.44.
Groundnut
World 24.63 41.27 ‘ 1.68 : 100
China 4.73 16.88 3.57 40.71
India ' 4:90 5'.78 ' ' 1.18 . 14.00
Nigeria ■ 2.42 3.07 1.27 7.44
U SA ' 0.65 3.06 ■ 4.70 7.41'
Myanmar 0.88 ' 1.37 . ■ 1.56 3.32
*Source:'FAO, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.
In India, weeds are one o f the major biological constraints that limit crop productivity. They
compete with crops for natural and applied resources besides being responsible for reducing
quantity and quality of agricultural productivity [Rao and Nagamani 2010, 2013; Rao et al.
2015], despite continuous research and extension efforts made. Bhan et al. [1999] estimated
that weeds in India reduce crop yields by 31.5% (22.7% in winter and 36.5% in summer and
kharif seasons). In other studies, weeds were reported to cause up to one-third of the total losses
in yield, besides impairing quality of produce and causing health and environmental hazards
[DWSR 2013]. In a survey, Indian weed scientists estimated losses due to weeds from 10%
to 100% (Table 2). Even a conservative estimate of about 10% loss [Bhan et al. 1999] would
amount to a loss of food grains valued at approximately US$ 13 billion [Yaduraju 2012]. Losses
of this magnitude due to weeds may occur in plantation crops, fruits, vegetables, grasslands,
forestry and aquatic environments. The total economic losses will be much higher, if indirect
effects of weeds on health, losses of biodiversity, nutrient depletion, grain quality, etc. are taken
into consideration.
Table 2. Potential yield loss due to weeds in different major crops of India [Rao et al. 2014].
< ri'|i ■ ' n WvUl l"§ |(% ).,, . C rop K ill 10SS (% )
Chieckpea 10-50 Pea 10-50

Cotton 40-60 Pearlmillet 16-65
Fingermillet 50 Pigeonpea 20-30
Greengram 10-45 Potato 20-30
Groundnut 30-80 Rice 10-100
Horsegram 30 Sorghum 45-69
Jute 30-70 Soybean 10-100
Lentil 30-35 Sugarcane 25-50
Maize 30-40 Vegetables 30-40
Niger ‘ 20-30 Wheat 10-60
This review provides a broad overview of weeds and their management as well as future
outlook on developments in weed science in India. It includes a) major crops of India and
weedsâssociated with them, along with the estimates of losses caused by weeds; b) important,
contentious weed species in agriculture crops, water bodies, public amenity areas and methods
of their management; c) invasive and parasitic weed species and their management; d) the extent,
limitations and cost-benefit analysis of weed management in conservative agriculture (CA)
systems; e) innovative strategies for managing weeds; f) herbicides available, herbicide residues
in soil and food-chain, their mitigation and management in rotational crops; and g) herbicide
90
resistance in weeds of India and their management. It also discusses the potential for adoption
of herbicide resistant (HR) transgenic crops in India!, the'current status of weed research and
education and extension activities besides emerging concerns/challenges and opportunities for
weed management.
Important Weed Species and their Management

Weeds Associated with Crops
Major weeds associated with different crops vary with crops (Table 3) and locations [Rao et al.
2014]. The Directorate of Weed Research (DWR), Jabalpur, has developed a Weed Atlas for
major weeds in major crops in 435 districts spread across 19 states of the country and published
a handbook on weed identification [Naidu 2012]. Its findings revealed that a) infestations of
little mallow (.Malvaparviflora L.), jangli palak {Rumex retroflexus Lag. ex Schult. & Schult.f.),
annualbluegrass {Po'a annuaL.), lesserswinecress {Coronopus didymus (L.) Sm.} andrabbitfoot
polypogon {.Polypogon monspliensis (L.) Desf.} are increasing in the rice-wheat cropping zone;
b) tiger foot morning glory (.Ipomoea pestigridis L.) has become a serious weed of sugarcane
in Haryana and U.R; c) the intensity of submerged weeds is gradually increasing in the rice-
rice sequence in Assam; d) ragweed {Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) and parthenium {Parthenium
hysterophorus L.) are gradually spreading beyond the non-cropped area and entering cropped
and plantation areas; and e) loranthus {Loranthus longiflorusDesr.) is likely to be a major
problem for mango orchards in the southern part of the country. In addition, weedy rice {Oryza
sativa L.) is emerging as a major problem in direct-seeded rice [Rap and Nagamani 2007; Rao
et al. 2007].
Table 3. Weeds of economic significance (in order of significance) in specific crops [Rao et al. 2014].
Whfiii Rio. Soyabean OMckJIlifSll' 15 &

Phalaris minor Echinochloa Echinochloa . Chenopodium Echinochloa
Retz. colona (L.) Link colona (L.) Link album L. colona (L.) Link
*Avena Echinochloa Cyperus rotundas Avena fatua L. Celosia argentea
ludoviciana crus-galli (L.) L. :'L.
Durieu Beauv.
Chenopodium Cyperus spp. Euphorbia Medicago . Cynotis axillaris
album L. geniculata Ortega denticulata Willd. (L.) D. Don.
Avena fatua L. Altemanthera sp. Commelina Chicorium intybus Euphorbia hirta L.
communis L.
Cichorium Cyperus rotundiis Dinebra retroflexa Convolvulus Melochia
intybus L. L. (Vahl) Panz arvensis L. corchorifolia L.
Medicago Commelina Physalis minima Lathyrus aphaca Cyperus spp.
denticulata benghalensis L. L. L. /Lathyrus
Willd. sattvus L.
91
............... ........... — *---------- — _ — ....... -»
W lu-nl .»•
Kice Soyabean ( liii'kpi’ii 1 Mai/i- ‘^
Parthenium Caesulia axillaris Triamhema spp. Vicia sativa Spilanthes acmella
hysterophorous Roxb. Murr.
L.
Vicia sativa L. Ammannia sp. Altemanthera Cyperus rotundus Blainvillea
sessilis (L.) R. Br. L. acmella (L.)
ex DC. Philipson
Convolvulus Dinebra sp. Chenopodium Orobanche Euporbia
arvensis L. album L. geniculata. Ortega
Melilotus alba. Eclipta alba (L.) Convolvulus Phalaris minor Digera spp.
.Medik. Hassk. arvensis L. Rtez.
Melilotus indica Fimbristylis Cynodon Avena ludoviciana Ageratum spp.
(L.)All. miliacea (L.) dactylon (L.) Pers.
Vahl
Rumex deniatus Dactyloctenium Digera arvensis Euphorbia Cyperus iria L.
L. aegypticum (L.) . Forsk. geniculata Orteg.
Willd.
*Synonym: Avenasterilis L. subsp. ludoviciana (Durieu) Gillet & Magne [excluded].
. Shifts in weed flora have also been reported. For example, due to'growing rice under
alternating flooding regimes and residual soil moisture conditions prevalent in the Cauvery
Deita region of Tamil Nadu, red sprangletop {Leptochloa chinensis (L.) Nees} and European
waterclover (Marsile’a qu'adrifolia L.) became predominant in rice fields by replacing
bamyardgrass (Echinochloa sp.) [Yaduraju and Kathiresan 2003]. In the eastern Indo-Gangetic
Plains, adoption o f zero tillage has resulted in an increase in population of globally-significant
perennial weeds such as purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) and Bermuda grass {Cynodon
dactylon(L.) Pers.} [Malik and Kumar 2014]. Such shifts are likely to occur in other production
^systemTaTWllTsuggestmg thafchanges m weed llora need to be monitored continuously in all
cropping systems and agro-ecological regions in order to assess emerging weed problems and
plan weed management strategies accordingly.
Weed Management in Major Crops

Manual weeding has been synonymous with weed management for centuries, due to abundant
availability of labour, cheaper labour costs and the nature of agriculture as an occupation.
Hence, manual and.mechanical methods were the prevalent weed management techniques used
by farmers lintil .the end of 1990s. During the 1990s, the nomirtal farm wages grew at. 11.6%
annually/while in the 2000s they rose at 8.9%. In the recent past, the growth was 17.8% during
2007-2008 and 2010-2011 (Source: Labour Bureau, Shimla, India).. The'effect of increased
wages and labour costs has concomitantly increased reliance on herbicides, applied alone or as:
a component of integrated weed management (IWM) [Raoet al. 2014].
92
In the past, the herbicides most commonly used were isoproturon and 2,4-D. Currently,
sulfosulfuron, clodinofop, metsulfuron, mesosulfuron+iodosulfuron and isproturon+2,4-D
mixture are commonly used by wheat farmers. In rice, thiobencarb, butachlor, 2,4-D and
anilophos have been used in the past. Currently, bispyribac-sodium, butachlor, fenoxaprop,
chlorimmron+metsulfuron, ethoxysulfiiron, oxadiargyl, pyrazosulfuron, pretilachlor and .2,4-D
are more favoured by rice farmers.
The distribution of horticultural crops and weeds in India, weed management methods in
fruit, vegetable, tuber, ornamental, .medicinal, aromatic and plantation crops and economics
were discussed by Chadha et al. [1997]. Herbicide use.in combination with hand weeding was
observed to be most economical by several researchers. Rao andNagamani [2010] summarized
economical weed manegement strategies for a few major crops of India (Table 4). The dynamic
nature of weeds necessitates continuous redesigning o f strategies from time to time for their
successful management.
Table 4. Most economical weed management methods for managing weeds .in certain crops of India
[Rao and Nagamani 2010].
I ( "*p Weed iii;in ;i" i'iM riil Reference
Asgandh (Withania Isoproturon 0.50+glyphosate 1.0 Pre; Kulmi and Tiwari 2005
somnifera Dunal) HW 45 DAS.
Blackgram Pendimethalin 0.50; HW 45 DAS Kumar et al. 2006

Pendimethalin 0.50; Pre; HW 60 DAS Rathi et al. 2004
Trifluralin 0.50 Pre; HW 45 DAS Sardana et al. 2006
Lentil Pendimethalin 1.0 Pre; HW 45 DAS Lhungdim et al. 2013
Coriander Pendimethalin 1.0 Pre; HW 45 DAS Nagar et al. 2009
jCowp.ea Pendimethalin 0.75 Pre: HW 35DAS . Mathew et al. 1995
Garlic r Oxyfluorfen 0.15 or pendimethalin 1.0 Pre; Porwal 1995

HW 40 DAS
Groundnut Pendimethalin or alachlor 1.0 Pre; HW 30 DAS Itnal et al. 1993
Indian mustard Pendimethalin 0.50 or fluchloralin 0.50 Pre; Singh et al. 1999
HW 30 DAS
Fluchloralin 0.75 Pre;. HW: 25 DAS Singh 2006
Onion Pedimethalinl'.5 Pre; HW: 60 DAT Rameshwar et al. 2002

Oxyfluorfen 0.25 Pre; HW: 40 DAT Nandal and Singh 2002 .
Oxyfluorfen 0.15 Pre; HW: 35 DAT Kolhe2001
Fluchloralin or pendimethalin 0.9'Pre; Sukhadia'et al. 2002
HW: 40 DAT Kalhapure and Shete 2012.
Pendimethalin 1.O+oxyfluorfen.O.25, Pre;
HW: 30DAT
93
Crop*' Wi/i-tJ llklllirgcnllnt y J lltl^ H fe re n c e

Okra Stale seed bed with glyphosate; eucalyptus Ameena et al. 2006
mulch
Opium Poppy** Isoproturon (375 g) or (500 g) Pre; HW: 30 DAS Kulmi and Tiwari 2004
Pea, Dwarf Pendipmethaln 1.0 Pre; HW: 30 DAS Tewari et al. 2003
Pigeonpea/ Pendimethalin 1.0 or fluchloralin 1.0 Pre; Vijayakumar et al. 1995
Gro.imgnut intercrop HW: 30,42 DAS
Pigeonpea/ ■ Pendimethalin 1.50 Pre; HW: 40 DAS Shinde et al. 2003
pearlmillet intercrop
Chickpea and Fluchloralin 1.0 PPI; intercrop: Kaur et al. 2013

mustard chickpea+mustard
Rice: transplanted Butachlor 1.0 or anilofos 0.4: close planting Gogoi etal. 2001
rice Anilophos 0.6: 7 DAT; HW: 27 DAT Singh and Kumar 1999
Rice: dry-seeded Butachlor 1.0 Pre; HW: 30 DAS Singh and Singh 2001
Sesame N: 60 +fluchloralm 1.0 PPI; HW: 21 DAS Singh et al. 2001
quizalofop-ethyl 0.05 Post 20 DAS; HW: 30 Bhadauria et al. 2012
DAS
Soya bean Butachlor 1.5 Pre; HW: 30 DAS Chandrakar and Urkurkar
rows spacing: 22.5 cm, alachlor 1.0 Pre 1993; Shekara and
Quizalofop-ethyl 0.05 +chlorimuron-ethyl 0.009 Nanjappa 1993
Post Jadhav 2013
15 DAS; HW: 30 DAS
Sugarcane Metribuzin or atrazine 1.0+trash mulch 3.5 tons; Singh etal. 2001a
inter-rows: 60 DAP
Wheat Pendimethalin 0.75 Pre; HW: 30 DAS Singh and Singh, 2004
Cross sowing+isoproturon 1.0 +2,4-D 500 g Chaudhary et al. 2013
-
*Crop: The crops are mentioned alphabetically, not according to their economic importance; **Opium Poppy: Pa-
paver somniferum L.); DAS = days after seeding; DAP = days after planting; DAT = days after transplanting; PPI:
preplant incorporation; Pre: preemergence; HW=Hand weeding; Herbicide rate: kg ha'1or g ha'1.
Weeds of Forest Lands

Weeds, particularly the invasive ones growing in forests, are characterized as forest invasive
species (FIS) and these include both indigenous and exotic (introduced) taxa. The Asia-Pacific
Forest Invasive Species Network (APFISN) has listed (http://apfisn.net/countryreports) '49
species as forest invasive species in India, which are nationally-distributed. The following
species have a special mention as major weeds: . . .
94
• Lantana {Lantana camara L.) is one of the most obnoxious weeds that has.encroached
most of the areas under community and reserve forestlands;
• Crofton weed {Ageratina adenophora (Spreng.) R. M. King & H. Rob.} (Synonym: Eu-
patorium glandulosum Michx.) is found in'the temperate region of the south and the north;
• Gorse (Ulex europaeus L.) represents a fire hazard to private property in the Western Ghats;
• Black Wattle (Acacia mearnsii De Wild.) was introduced in the Western Ghats, particularly
in the Nilgiri Hills (South-central India), to provide fael wood to rural people and to save
the shola forests in Kerala.. But these forests were degraded by human activities. This spe
cies has also been planted in tea plantations to provide shade to tea plants but now it has
covered most of the shola forests and become menace in the Nilgiris besides spreading to
waste lands and road-sides in several states. Regeneration of shola forests is affected by
profuse regeneration and invasive nature of this species;
• Mikania (.Mikania micrantha Kunth), a perennial fast growing weed of Neotropical ori
gin, has become a major menace to natural forests, plantations and agricultural systems
in North-east and South-west India. This climbing weed spreads very fast in areas where
canopy is open;
• Broom {Cytisus scoparius (L.) Link}, introduced from European countries in the Western
Ghats for ornamental purposes, has become a menace in the Nilgiri Hills, particularly in
the shola forests and grazing lands; and
• Royle’s Spurge (Euphorbia royleana Boiss) in the Himalayan zones has spread extensive
ly, covering thousands of hectares of land.
Besides, other species viz., common wormwood (,Artemisia vulgaris L.), karonda (Carrisa
carandas L.), and hopbush (Dodonaea viscosa Jacq.), have also spread over large areas in the
Himalayan zone.
The actions being considered by APFISN to prevent introduction of such forest invaders
include: a) limiting soil disturbances; b) immediate re-vegetation of disturbed sites; c) use of
certified “weed-free” seeds for re-vegetation of disturbed sites; d) cleaning.equipment,and
materials before and after use to ensure they are, free of invasive plant seeds and plant parts
before arriving and leaving the site; e) use of “weed-free” hay bales for erosion control and
feed; f) early detection and eradication by training field staff in the identification of restricted
and noxious invasive plants, collection of survey information, destruction of individual invasive
plants and reporting new infestations in a timely maimer; g) conducting invasive plant survey
prior to commencement of any land-disturbing activity to identify potential problem areas;
h) communication between various stakeholders and provincial and municipal government
agencies information transfer to promote regional awareness; i) incorporation of invasive plant
management in planning phase; j) education and awareness; and k) controlling invasive weeds
by utilizing their raw materials for economic purpose.
95
There are many examples of utilization of weeds in India. For instance, water hyacinth
{.Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms} is being utilized for electricity generation [Gopal 1987]
and Eupatorium{ Ckromolaena odorata (L.) King and Robinson} for preparation of compost
[Nawaz and George 2004]. Forest Research Institute has made furniture and buckets from
Lantana wood (http://apfisn.net/ country reports).
Weeds of Aquatics and Public Amenity Areas

Aquatic plants are an essential component of aquatic ecosystems, and as some of them may
reach excessive proportions they pose a serious threat to fishery industry [Gupta 1987]. Aquatic
weeds compete with fish for water, nutrients, light, niche and oxygen, and thus reduce fish yields
[Varshney and Singh 1976; Wiley et al. 1984]. The major aquatic weed species such as water
hyacinth, water spinach (.Ipomoea aquatica Forssk.), bullrush (Typha angustata Bory&Chaub.),
homwort (Ceratophyllum demersum J.G. Klein ex Cham.), salvinia {Salvinia molesta D.S.
Mitchell), lotus (.Nelumbo nuciferct Gaertn.), alligator weed {.Altemanthera philoxeroides
(Mart.) Griseb.}, Hydrilla verticillata F. Muell., Vallisneria spiralis L., Chara spp., Nitella
spp. and Potamogeton spp. are a primary concern in India [Sushilkumar 2011]. The aquatic
weed problems vary from one State to the other. For example, the major aquatic weeds in
Kerala include water hyacinth, Salvinia sp., E. crassipes, Pistia stratiotes L., Altemanthera sp.,
Azolla, Lemna minor L. and if. verticillata [Jayan and Sathyanathan2012]. In Madhya Pradesh,
predominant aquatic weeds include Vallisneria sp., Potamogeton sp., Ipomoea sp., Lemna sp.,
Azolla sp., Pistia sp., Hydrilla sp., Chara sp. and Myriophyllum sp. [Singh and Nigam 2014].
The aquatic weed problems and their management in India have been reviewed from time to
time [Jain 1975; Mani et al. 1976; Varshney and Singh 1976; Mukhopadhyay 1986; Nandeesha
et al. 1989; Gopal andZutshi 1998; Sushilkumar2011; Datta etal. 2014],
The herbicides recommended for managing aquatic weeds are given in Table 5. The
utilisation of aquatic weeds for waste water treatment has also been suggested [Trivedi.
1998; Kathiresan 2012; Dolui et al. 2014]. Water hyacinth has been successfully used for the
extraction of nano-fibres using chemical (alkali and peroxide) and mechanical treatments (2,2,
6,'6-tetramethylpiperidine-l-oxyl radical-TEMPO-mediated oxidation treatment) [Kathiresan
2012]. We suggest an integrated approach as the best method for managing aquatic weeds in
India, and this should include examining options for utilization of their biomass whenever and
wherever there are beneficial opportunities.
Table 5. Herbicides used for aquatic weed control in India [Jayan and Sathyanathan 2012].
1lithiiidi' | Type ofweeds i

Sodium arsemte Submerged weeds 5-8 ml L'1 '
Copper sulphate Submerged weeds + algae 0.5-2.0 mg L'1
96
Weed Science in the As ian-Pacific Region
Herbkidi Type of weeds Kate

Hydrogen peroxide Submerged weeds 10-20 mg L"1
Dalapon Emergent grass weeds 18-25 kg'1 '
i—
o
2,4-D Free floating and emergent weeds
—1
2,4-D Submerged weeds 1.0 mg L'1.
Dichlobenil Submerged and emerged floating weeds 1.0 to 2.0 mg L'1
Diuron Algae; submerged floating and emerged weeds 0.5 to 1.5 mg L"1-
Triazines Algae; submerged and free floating weeds 0.5 to 1.0 mg L'1
Paraquat Submerged and’floating weeds 0.5 mg L'1
Diquat Floating and emerged weeds 1.0 kg'1
Endothall Submerged weeds 0.5-2.5 m gL'1
Fhmdone Submerged and floating weeds 0.1-1.0 mg L'1
Glyphosate Emergent and floating weeds 1.8-2.1 kg-1
Weeds of Wastelands and Roadsides

Owing to the growing economic conditions in India, there is a visible increase in lands being
kept fallow (in addition to the existing wastelands). The process of road construction spreads
weeds to road-side lands adjacent to highways. In the Himalayan region of Uttarakhand state,
a study on the distribution of invasive species (163 invasive alien species under 105 genera),
based on habitat, showed that the highest number of species is found in wastelands (48%),
followed by cultivated fields (20%), roadsides" (14%) and forests (8%) [Selcar et al. 2012].
Reviewing the weed research in India, Mukhopadyay {-1993] reported parthenium as a new
weed becoming apparent in India by its presence in waste lands all over the country. Bhan et
al. [1999] also reported parthenium as a .waste land weed. Currently,, it is a major weed of dry
land crops, causing yield declines in several crops [Tanveer et al. 2015]. Thus, its management
in un-used wastelands and roadsides is essential to arrest them from becoming a serious weed
problem in agro-ecosystems and to prevent allergies to humans.
Roadsides provide suitable .conditions for the establishment and growth of exotic species
and their spread. O f the 71 species infesting roadsides in the central highlands of India, 55
were non-native ones, whose propagules spread from roadsides to the interior forest landscapes,
indicating the. need to restrict their spread [Sharma and Raghubanshi 200,9]. A study on the
roadside distribution patterns of invasive alien plants along an altitudinal gradient in the
Himalayas of Arunachal Pradesh, indicated that the most common plants, by both frequency
and coverage (> 50%) were: goatweed (Ageratum conyzoides L.), Siam weed (C. odorata) and
97
Mikania. Composition of species changed with altitude [Kosaka et al. 2010]. Thirteen species
grew in the tropical, 10 in the subtropical, six in the temperate and one (Taraxacum officinale
F.H. Wigg) in the subalpine zones. Kosaka et al. [2010] suggested that low temperature and
snowfall in the highlands prevented establishment of non-adapted tropical species and that
recent construction of highways facilitated the establishment of invasive alien plants. A serious
attempt to enumerate weeds of wastelands and road sides, in different parts of India, needs to be
made, and we observe that such an effort is yet to materialise. Proper monitoring and reporting
of infestations and spread of new and naturalized weeds is required for early detection and
management.
Invasive and Parasitic Species
Invasive Species
Some of the introduced (alien) plants are cultivated for economic purposes (food, forage, timber,
'ornamental, etc.). Some of these species, after becoming locally dominant, invade natural
communities and come to be regarded as Invasive Alien Species (IAS). These often exhibit
morphological, physiological and demographic plasticity to flourish in a variety of habitats
[Meekins and McCarthy 2001]. Invasive alien species, defined as those non-native species that
threaten ecosystems, habitats or species [CBD 2008], are key drivers of human-caused global
environmental change [Vitousek et al. 1997]. They also inflict serious impact on the ecosystem
processes that have global consequences for well-being [MES 2005], including the wholesale
loss or alteration of goods (e.g., fisheries, agricultural and forest products) and services (e.g.,
clean and plentiful drinking water, climate stabilization, pollination, culture and recreation)
[Daily et al. 1997; Mooney 2005].
O f the 45,000 plants that have been identified [Sharma et al. 1993], 40% are alien or
introduced [Saxena 1991] while 20% being invasive [Raghubanshi et al. 2005]. Reddy [20051
has documented 173 IAS belonging to 117 genera and 44 families. About 80% of them have
been introduced from neotropics. Tropical America (74%) and tropical Africa (11 %) contributed
a majority of the invasive alien flora now present in India. A habit-wise analysis showed that
151 were herbaceous species, followed by shrubs (14), climbers (5) and trees (3). Some of the
prominent invasive alien weeds include Lantana camara, C. odorata, E. crassipes, Opuntia
dillenii Haw. Mimosa pudica Mill., Lippia geminate Kunth and Jatropha gossypiifolia L.
[Viraktamath 2002]. Other species like Parthenium hysterophorus L. Phalaris minor Retz.,
Eupatorium glandulosum Michx., Ulex europaeus L., Acacia mearnsii De Willd, Cytisus
scoparius (L.) Link, Opuntia vulgaris auct. non P. Mill., Prosopis chilensis (Molina) Stuntz and
Euphorbia royleana Boiss [Dakar 2003; Srivastava and Singh 2009] are also invasive.
Mikania, discussed earlier, was introduced in India after the Second World War and its
profuse growth in Kerala and Assam over the years affected forests and tea plantations causing
98
Weed-Seience in the Asian-Pacific Region
damage to the ecosystem and economy of the country [Banerjee etal. 2012]. Since the 1980s, it
began spreading and invading other Indian states and there is an urgent need to map and monitor
its spread. The perennial shrub L. camara is considered as one of the 10 worst weeds in the
world and in India it is a weed of fence lines, pastures, rangelands, waste places and cultivated
lands [Nanjappa et al. 2005]. Another worst invasive species is C.odorata. These two species
were introduced to India through the Calcutta Botanical Garden in the last century [Muniappan
and Viraktamath 1993]. To prevent predominance of such invasive weeds, the National Invasive
Weed Surveillance (NIWS) Program was launched .in 2008 to detect their establishment.
Extensive surveys and rigorous monitoring have led to the detection of five quarantine weeds:
Cenchrus tribuloides L., Solarium carolinense L., Cynoglossum officinale L., Ambrosia trifida
L., and Viola arvensis Murray in several parts of the country [Yaduraju 2012].
Reviews on the biology and management of invasive weeds, including Lantana [Pimentel
et al. 2001; Nanjappa et al. 2005] suggested that the economic losses caused by IAS in Indian
crops and pastures were in the order of US$ 37.8 and US$ 0.92 billion, respectively. Lantana
was introduced from Australia as an ornamental plant. This perennial shrub, belonging to
Verbanaceae, had invaded the majority of Indian pasture lands over 13 million and other areas
[Singh et al. 1996]. Known to be toxic to cattle, the cost of Lantana control was estimated to be
US$ 70 ha*1[Singh et al. 1996]. As 4% of India’s land area is under pastures, the damage caused
by it was estimated to be US$ 924 million. If other introduced weeds like parthenium are also
takeninto consideration-, the losses caused by alien weeds to pastures would be much higher.
The Government of India introduced a statutory element-Plant Quarantine Order 2003-
to synchronize India’s regulatory framework with the Agreement (WTO-SPS Agreement)
on application of Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Measures adopted by the International Plant
Protection Convention and The World Trade Organization. Apermit requirement is now enforced
- on-import-s of ■seeds-mcluding flower,-seeds, pr-opag^ting-materialsând-mushroom spawn-
cultures. Declarations have also been specified for import of 144 agricultural commodities
[Mandal 2011], A scientific legal and institutional approach to the country’s bio-security threat
needs to be strengthened for long-term success against invasive weeds.
Parasitic Species
Globally, about 2,500 species of angiosperms are reported to be parasitic plants. These largely
belong to Loranthaceae, Convolvulaceae, Scrophulariaceae, Orobanchaceae, Balanophoraceae
Lauraceae and Santalaceae families. Parasitic weeds such as field dodder (Cuscuta campestris
Yuncker); Striga, broomrape and Loranthus are serious problems in some of the major crops and
cropping systems of India.
Dodder is an annual obligate stem parasite belonging to Cuscutaceae. The genus Cuscuta
is comprised of about 175 species worldwide. O f the 12 species reported in India, C. campestris
99
Weeds and Weed Management in India-A Review
and’C. reflexa Roxb. are the most common ones. Cuscuta is a major limitation for cultivation of
niger {Guizotia'abyssinica (L.f.) Cass.} in radiata Odisha; lucerne in Gujarat; blackgram {Vigna
mungo (L.) Hepper} and greengram {Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek} in rice-fallows of Andhra
Pradesh; and- niger,. berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum L.), lentil (Lens culinaris Medikus),
linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.), and chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in parts of Madhya Pradesh
and Chhattisgarh. Some species of Cuscuta also infest ornamental plants, hedges and trees
.[Mishra2009],
■ Broomrapes" (.Phelipanche spp. and Orobanche spp.) are obligate root parasites belonging
to Orobanchaceae. O f the 90 genera in this family, Phelipanche ramosa L. and‘Phelipanche
aegyptiaca (Pers.) Pomel severely infest Brassica [Rathore et al. 2014]. Infestation of Orobanche
is largely confined to major mustard growing states of northern Rajasthan, Haryana, Punjab,
Western UP and northeast Madhya Pradesh [Punia 2014], It is a major root parasite in tobacco,
tomato'and potato in: parts of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat [DWSR
2013]. In Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, 50% of the area under tobacco (40,000 ha) is infested
by Orobanche, causing 50-60% yield loss. Tomato is also infested by it in Mewat and Bhiwani
districts of Haryana. The extent of crop failure due to Orobanche depends on the extent of
infestation, environmental factors, soil fertility and the crop competitiveness [Dhanapal et
al. 1996]. Many farmers have even abandoned cultivation of mustard under the threat of this
parasitic weed [Punia 2014].
Cultural, chemical and preventive methods used in an integrated approach to manage these
parasitic weeds in mustard include, a) crop rotations with non-host crops, such as wheat, barley
and chickpea, depending on the irrigation facilities; b) delayed sowing (25 October-10 November)
of mustard supplemented with higher seed rate; c) use of organic manures, in combination with
increased N fertilizer, to enhance crop vigour; d) two applications of glyphosate at 25 g ha'1
at 30 DAS and 50 g ha'155 DAS, provided the crop is not under moisture^ stress. .at. the time of
spray; and e) hand removal/pulling of left-over emerging shoots before flowering to prevent
weed seed bank build-up in the soil [Punia 2014];
Striga infests mostly sugarcane, maize, sorghum and pearl millet grown-in dry areas in some
parts of Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. Loranthus is noticed in economically
useful tree crops such as mango, neem (Azadirachta indica A.Juss), teak, Cassia spp., rosewood
(Dalbergia nigra Fr. All.), Dalbergia {Dalbergia sissoo Roxb.), Albizia {Albizia lebbeck (L.)
Benth.}, Terminalia (Terminalia acuminata Eichler), rain tree (Albizia saman F.Muell.),
pongamia {MiUettiapinnata (L.) Panigrahi}, gulmohar {Delonix regia (Boj. ex Hook.) Raf.},
Madhuca {Madhuca longifolia (J. Konig) J.F. Macbr}, Ficus (Ficus religiosa L.), etc. It is
necessary to develop effective and economical management technologies for these weeds,
which are fast spreading to newer areas and parasitizing many other host plants. As Parker
[1993] concluded “while difficult, the control of parasitic weeds is not impossible”.
100
Weed Management in Conservation Agriculture Systems

Conservation Agriculture (CA) is considered an efficient crop'management technology, which
uses less inputs and improves production and income [Gupta an d ’Seth 200.7; Chauhan et al.
2012a]. Reduced costs, increased profitability and better use of resources (e.g., labour and
water) are the main factors responsible for the adoption of CA in India [Hobbs and Gupta 2004].
Impending changes in climate and sustainability of cropping systems are also important reasons
for adoption of CA systems in India. In the Indo-Gangetic Plains, the resource conservation
technologies are being practiced in > 3 million ha under the rice-wheat based systems [Sharma
and Singh 2014].
Despite several benefits CA offers, weeds continue to be one of the biggest constraints to
its adoption. After adoption o f zero-till wheat in Northwest India, weed flora shifted towards
broadleaf weeds including toothed dock (Rumex dentatus L.). Similarly, in the vertisols- of
Jabalpur, infestation of common vetch (garden vetch: Vicia sativa L.) increased in zero-till
system compared to conventional tillage system [Mishra and Singh 2011]. As adoption o f CA
practices has been increasing [Hobbs 2007], there is a need to gain better understanding on
weed management in CA crop production systems. Various approaches, including the use of
preventive measures, intercropping, cover cropping, crop residue as mulches, competitive crop
cultivars, optimum planting geometry, optimum sowing time, herbicide-tolerant (HT) cultivars
and herbicides, (components of integrated method) need to be followed to successfully manage
weeds [Chauhan et al. 2012,2012a; Sharma and Singh 2014]. Weedy rice (Oryza sativa L.) has
become a serious problem in India, and its spread, is largely through the use of contaminated
rice seeds [Chauhan and Mahajan 2012]. The authors have discussed preventive measures, such
as the use of clean crop seeds and clean machine, which are much cheaper and easier options in
reducing weedy rice infestation in CA systems.
InC A system, crop residues are left behind-on-the soil-s-urface.-In- addit-ien-to-moisture and-
soil conservation, the residues act as mulch and suppress weed seedling emergence [Chauhan
et al. 2012a; Chauhan 2012]. Inclusion of a cover crop between two main crops also helps
reduce weed density in CA cropping system. In this, the cover crop can be killed by using a
non-selective herbicide and its dead mulch be used to suppress weed germination by releasing
allelochemicals and/or reducing light transmittance to soil surface. Growing Sesbania rostrata
Bremek. & Oberm as a cover crop was found to control most of the weeds, leaving the field
almost weed-free in rice-wheat cropping systems [Mahapatra et al. 2004]. Similarly, mungbean
can be grown as a cover crop in rice-wheat cropping system.
Crop, rotations and diversification not only improve soil health but also reduce build
up. of pests, including weeds [Chauhan and Mahajan 2012]. Different crops require different
management programmes to prevent selection of resistant weed species in CA systems. In
101
India, fewer cases of resistance :in P. minor were found when growers included sunflower and
sugarcane in rotation than following a continuous rice-wheat cropping system [Malik and Singh
1995].. Similarly, replacing wheat with a crop, such as berseem clover {Trifolium alexandrinum
L.), potato and oilseed rape {Brassica napus L.) for 2-3 yr period in a rice-wheat cropping
system reduced the population o f R minor significantly [Brar 2002]. Instead of continuous
monoculture cultivation of rice, Chauhan et al. [2012] also suggested rotating one rice crop with
an upland crop as a method to reduce the problem of weedy ,rice.
Herbicides play an important part in managing weeds in CA. However, due to presence of
crop residues on the soil surface, pre-emergence herbicides may not be very effective [Chauhan
et al. 2006]. Residues are known to intercept up to 80% of the applied pre-emergence herbicides.
Therefore, there is a need to better understand the efficacy of different pre-emergence herbicides
when applied in different crops in India. Because of the efficacy issue of preemergence herbicides,
timing of postemergence herbicides is critical in CA. Herbicide rotations and mixtures may
improve the weed control spectrum.
As discussed earlier, there are several weed management approaches now available
to manage weeds: in CA. However, there is a need to integrate different weed management
strategies for widening the weed control spectrum and maintaining the sustainability of CA.
Innovative Strategies for Managing Weeds

There has been a significant amount of research in India on innovative strategies to manage
weeds in cropping systems. For instance, in some early research in the early 1980s, Rae
and Settee [1981] showed that the inclusion of fast growing, short-duration cowpea' {Vigna
unguiculata (L.) Walp.} or mungbean as weed-smothering intercrop (smother crop) in inter
rows of sorghum reduced one round of hand weeding in sorghum due to the smothering effect.
-Similar~work.[Rao-et-al, -l-9-82;-Kondapet-al.4983]demonstrated4he-use'of competit-ive~-crops-
for managing perennial weeds including purple nutsedge {Cyperus rotundus).These results [Rao
and Shetty 1983; Rao and Ladha 2011; Rao and Nagamani 2013] suggested that ecological
approaches need to be more widely adopted to manage weeds in semi-arid-tropic crops.
In another example, Kumar et al. [1993] reported that soil solarisation, in which the soil
surface is heated by placing plastic sheets for 32 d on a moist soil to trap the solar radiation,
decreased the emergence of crowfootgrass {.Dactyloctenium aegyptium (L.) Willd.}, goosegrass
{Acrachne racemosa (Roem. & Schult.) Ohwi}, horse purslane {Trianthemaportulacastrum L.)
and C. rotundus by more than 90%. Other studies suggested that the main effect of solarisation
was restricted to the 0-5 cn f soil layer [Kumar et al. 1993]. Patel et.al. [2005] reviewed the
role of soil solarisation in weed management. Soil solarisation may help in managing weeds
economically in commercial and horticultural crops.
102
Simple cultural practices such as adjusting sowing time of some crops were found to
minimize weed infestation. In North India, the adoption of zero-till and early planting of wheat
resulted in reduced P. minor problems and increased grower profits because early planting
provided a competitive advantage to the crop compared to weed [Chauhan and Mahajan 2012].
Competitive replacement of Parthenium can be achieved by planting plants like Cassia
sericea SW., senna tora (Cassia tora L.), tanner’s cassia {Cassia auriculata L.), Bonpland’s
croton {Croton bonplandianum Baill.), spiny amaranth {Amaranthus spinosus L.), fish poison
{.Tephrosiapurpurea (L.) Pers.}, pignut {Hyptis suaveolens-{L.) Poit.}5prickly fanpetals {Sida
spinosa L.), and Marvel of Peru {Mirabilisjalapa L.) which are capable of effectively suppressing
the natural habitats of Parthenium in [Wahab 2005]. A 52.5% reduction in Parthenium population
by Cassia sericea Sw. was reported [Kandasamy and Sankaran 1997]. Aqueous extracts from
cogongrass {Imperata cylindrica (L.) P. Beauv.}, sacrificial grass {Desmostachya bipinnata
(L.) Stapf.}, Kleberg bluestem {Dichanthium annulatum (Forssk.) Stapf.}, and Johnsongrass
{Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers.} markedly suppressed germination and seedling growth of
Parthenium [Javaid et al. 2005]. In India, crop rotation using marigold {Tagetes spp.) during
rainy season, instead of the usual crop, has been found to be effective in reducing Parthenium
infestation in cultivated areas [Kaur et al. 2014].
Ample research has been published on allelopathic interactions of crops and weeds in
India [Rao et al. 1977; Narwal 1994; Das et al. 2012], Allelopathy has been suggested as a
potential method for inclusion as component of IWM [Rizvi and Rizvi 1992; Sangeetha and
Bhaskar 2015]. However, the application of Koch’s postulates was required to establish proof
of allelopathy [Williamson 1990] and only when such critical experiments are undertaken, the
practical application of allelopathy in IWM would become a reality.
The innovative biological control of weeds in India was first documented in 1795
[Muniappan et.al. 2009]. It involved the invasive plant common prickly pear {Opuntia
monacantha (Wildenow) Haworth} (Cactaceae), which was controlled serendipitously due to
the inadvertent introduction of Dactyldpius ceylonicus (Green) (Hemiptera: Dactylopiidae)
from Brazil in the mistaken identity for Dactylopius coccus Costa (Hemiptera: Dactylopidae)
[Muniappan et al. 2009]. Biological control with Mexican beetle Zygogramma bicolorata
Pallister (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) was found effective and economical [Sushilkumar 2006;
Sushilkumar and Ray 2011].
The integration of the insect biocontrol agent with the use of dried plant materials of the
medicinal herb Mexican mint {Coleus amboinicus Lour) was envisaged for managing water
hyacinth as it is allelopathic on this aquatic weed. It works through membrane disruption and
electrolyte leakage. The dried plant powder easily gets absorbed into the water hyacinth through
the leaf scrapings made by the insects [Kathiresan 2014].
103
Herbicide Use, Residues, Resistance and Tolerant Crops in India

Herbicides are among the most widely used agrochemical products globally, followed by
insecticides and fungicides [FICCI2013]. However, the Indian crop protection market is largely
dominated by insecticides, which account for 65% of the total. The agrochemical consumption
in India was estimated to be 0.58 kg ha'1 as against 13 kg ha'1in China and 7 kg ha'1 in the
USA [FICCI 2013]. This indicates the growth potential of India’s pesticide industry as fanners
continue to adopt improved crop production technologies. Herbicides constitute the largest
growing segment, and currently they account for 16% of the gross pesticide market. The market
doubled between 2005 and 2010, and in 2012 it rose by 35% [Gianessi 2013].
Traditionally, weed control depended on manual weeding. The National Rural Employment
Guarantee Act 2005, which mandated guaranteed employment and wages to rural population,
has contributed to creating labour shortage and enhancing labour wages for weeding. This
has led to manual weeding becoming an unsustainable practice in several states. As labour for
manual weeding became expensive and scarce, farmers initiated adoption of herbicide-based
weed management. Furthermore, research has consistently proved that herbicides provide more
effective and economical weed control leading to higher crop yields [Rao and Ladha 2011;
2013; Rao et al. 2014]. One study [Govindarajan et al. 2009] reported that labour usage was
about 43 hr, 33 hr and 80 hr lower in rice, maize and sugarcane, respectively, when herbicides
were used. Rice and cotton are the major crops that use crop protection chemicals, accounting
for 28% and 20%, respectively. The three states of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Punjab
account for -50% of the total pesticide consumption in India. Rice and wheat crops consume a
major share of herbicides. Increasing costs of farm labour are likely to drive sales of herbicides
further.
The herbicides available in India, crops in which they are recommended, available
formulations and their trade names are summarized bythe Directorate of Weed Research (DWR),
Jabalpur. These were published in three books: i) herbicides [Sondhia arid Varshney 2009];
ii) herbicides used in field crops [Dixit and Varshney 2009], and iii) herbicide recommendations
[Dixit and Varshney 2009a].
Herbicide Residues in Soil and Food-chain

Increased herbicide usage may result in retention of herbicide residues in soil, residual
phytotoxicity to crops grown in rotation and adverse effects on non-target organisms including
human and farm animals[Sondhia 2014]. Several of the herbicides used in India get adsorbed
to soil particles, making them unavailable to control weeds, and also causing 'possible
contamination of the soils in the ecosystems they were used. Adsorption, volatilization, leaching,
runoff, photo-decomposition and degradation by microbial and chemical processes determine
the fate of herbicides in the soil, water and the ecosystem [Jannali et al. 2013; Sondhia 2014].
104
Weed-Science in the Asian-Pacific Region
Research in India indicated the half-lives of imadazoline, phenylureas, sulfonylureas, triazines,

chloroacetinalides, dinitroanilines, diethyl ethers, thiocarbamates, and ‘fop’ (arylphenoxy
propionate) herbicides (cyhalofop-butyl;quizalofop-ethyl) in soil to be 57-71 d, 13-60 d, 13-147
d, 12-58 d, 5-60 d, 12-77 d, 19-29 d, 19-24 d, and 8-24 d, respectively [Sondhia and Varshney
2009]. Herbicides with long half-lives include chlorosulfuron (31-93 d) and metsulfuron-methyl
(70-147 d), while those with short half-lives include: butachlor (5-24 d); flufenacet (9-22 d);
pretilachlor (10-11 d); sulfosulfuron and (3-27 d); 2,4-D (7-22 d) [Sondhia 2014].
At harvest, residues of herbicides (e.g., cyhalofop-butyl in direct-seeded rice; quizalofop-
ethyl in jute; fentrazamide in rice; pendimethalin in cabbage; trifluralin in blackgram;
pendimethalin, trifluralin and oxyfluorfen in carrot) were found to be either below the maximum
or detectable residue limits in soil and crop plants [Arora and Gopal 2004; Mukherjee and Gopal
2005; Banerjee 2008; Singh et al. 2010]. For example, residues of ethoxysulfuron applied at 15
to 20 g ha'1were found below <0.001 jug g'1 in rice soil at harvest [Sondhia and Dixit 2012]. In
other studies [Singh et al. 2013a], no detectable residues of fenoxaprop-ethyl acid were detected
in soil, wheat grain and straw when recommended doses were used.
In a long term study (2000 to 2010) involving long-term herbicide applications integrated
with nitrogen management in transplanted rice-rice cropping system, Chinnusamy et al. [2012]
reported that residues of butachlor (0.75 kg ha-1), pretilachlor (0.75 kg ha'1), and 2,4-D (0.4 kg
ha*1) were below the detectable level at 45 d after application in soil and crop in consecutive
seasons. At the same time, there was an increase in the abundance o f soil actinomycetes, fungi
and bacteria [Chinnusamy et al. 2012].
Most of the herbicides were also found to be non-toxic to the crops grown in rotation in
majority of the cases [Babu et al. 2013; Sondhia 2014]. However, there have been reports of
residual phytotoxicity too. For example, growth of sorghum planted after wheat was significantly
affected by the residues of chlorsulfuron at 30 g ha'1 (which controlled weeds and increased
wheat yields) followed by metribuzin at 400 g ha'1 [S£arma'"et al: 2002].-In~a-recent paper,-
Sondhia [2014] discussed the Indian perspectives of herbicides residues in soil, water, plants
and non-targeted organisms and human health implications.
Herbicide-Tolerant Transgenic Crops

Herbicide-tolerant transgenic crops, commonly known as genetically modified (GM) crops, are
grown on 181.5 million ha in 29 countries, involving over 17 million farmers of which about 15
million are small and resource-poor. India with 11.6 million ha is ranked fifth in terms of total
area under GM crops. However, herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops are yet to be introduced in India.
. Chauhan and Mahajan [2012] expressed the view that in CA, the use of HT crops may
prove to be a useful tool in managing problematic weeds. Compared with conventional crop
cultivars, the use of HT cultivars offers several advantages such as the application of fewer
herbicides, reduced soil compaction, ability to eliminate hard-to-control weeds and higher crop
105
yields by eliminating damage caused to the crop by herbicides, drought or low temperatures,
besides being benign environmentally [Chauhan et al. 2012]. Whilst some of these aspects are
advantageous, continuous use of a herbicides may result in shifts to some problematic weed
species and growers may lose this important tool for weed management, if improperly used.
Therefore, we feel that without proper stewardship programmes and stringent guidelines,
HT crops should not be used. Currently, Indian farmers are being deprived of such modem
. innovations due to unfounded apprehensions [Sharma and Singh 2014].
In India, HT crop technology is at initial stages of field evaluation. It is likely to be brought
to the farming community in the near future, keeping in view of potential benefits in specific
situations. Farmers need to be adequately trained on the proper use of HT cultivars before they
are introduced. The likely introduction of GM crops has also prompted concerns about the
potential transfer of herbicide tolerance to weed populations via crop-to-weed gene flow. Strong
measures to prevent possible transfer of genes to weeds need to be taken prior to the release of
HT cultivars in India, based on well-developed guidelines.
Herbicide Resistance in Weeds

The continuous use of isoproturon, coupled with mono-cropping of rice-wheat, led to the
evolution of resistance in P minor in the states of Haryana and Punjab [Malik and Singh 1995].
The problem of resistance was so serious that farmers there began growing sunflower to exhaust
the seed bank of this annual grass. The efforts of herbicide resistance management have led
to the adoption o f CAIn the rice-wheat cropping system, as a component of IWM. Details of
resistance development and its management using integrated approach with focused attention
on zero-tillage have been published [Malik et al. 2002; Franke et al. 2007].
There are no other cases of herbicide resistance reported in India so far. However, continuous
monitoring is needed and all efforts are to be made to prevent the occurrence of HR weeds when
Tferbicide usage is increasing at a fast pace in several states of the country.
Weed Science Research in India

Even though farmers’ experimentation to manage weeds may have begun with the initiation
of agriculture, weed research in India commenced with adoption of herbicide technology. The
earliest attempt to control weeds by herbicides was made in 1937 in the state of Punjab to
control wild safflower (Carthamus oxyacantha M. Bieb.) by using sodium arsenite. After the
discovery of 2,4-D -as a plant growth regulator, it was first tested in India in 1946 [Mukhopadhyay
1993]. Since then a number of herbicides have been imported and tested for their effectiveness
in controlling many weed species. In 1952, Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR)
initiated schemes for testing the field performance of herbicides in rice, wheat and sugarcane in
different states of India. In the early period, the largest user of herbicides (50-60%) was the tea
plantation sector.
106
ICAR recognized the need for strengthening weed research in India by setting up, in 1978,
an All India Coordinated Research Programme on Weed Control (AICRPWC) in collaboration
with the United States Department o f Agriculture (USDA). This programme is now being
implemented by 22 centres across the country.' Prior to its establishment, weed science was
considered as a sub-discipline of agronomy. This trend is still being continued, and many
agricultural institutions in India are without a separate department of weed science.
The National'Research Centre for Weed Science, established in 1989 at Jabalpur, was
upgraded to become the Directorate of Weed Science Research (DWSR) in 2009. It is now
being called as the Directorate of Weed Research (DWR) since 2014. It is engaged in basic
and strategic research. It also coordinates the applied and location-specific research conducted
at the 22 coordinating units, located in different parts of the country. The botany departments
of several traditional universities and central universities in India are also engaged in teaching
basic aspects of weed science, particularly the taxonomic, ecological and physiological aspects
of weeds. Rao et al. [2014] summarized the details of weed science research conducted so far in
India and future directions.
Emerging Challenges and Opportunities for Weed Management

Challenges
Weeds are a major biotic constraint to crop production all over the world, and India is no
exception. Transplantation method of rice is being replaced by direct-seeding in several regions
due to non-availability and increased cost o f labour [Chauhan and Johnson 2010], water scarcity
and increased cost for pumping water [Rodell et al. 2009; Mahajan et al. 2012a]. However, the
risk of crop yield losses due to weeds in direct-seeded rice systems is more than in flooded
transplanted rice system because of the absence of the suppressive effect of standing water on
weed emergence and the absence of the size differentiaT between the rice-a-nd-weed-seedlings-
[Rao et al. 2007]. Therefore, the change in crop establishment methods is likely to be associated
with a shift in the weed flora towards hard-to-control weeds [Chauhan and Johnson 2010].
Herbicide use is increasing dramatically in different crops and this trend is expected
to continue. Increased use of herbicides has been associated with the evolution of herbicide
resistance in weeds, shifts in weed population, increased costs of chemical control measures
and concerns over the environment [Buhler etal. 2002; Chauhan and Johnson 2010]. One of the
best known examples of herbicide resistance development in India is resistance to isopropturon
demonstrated by Phalaris minor in wheat due to heavy reliance of the cropping system on this
substituted phenyl urea herbicide [Malik and Singh. 1995]. In direct-seeded rice, acetolactate
synthase (ALS) inhibitor herbicides are being widely advocated for weed management. However,
evolution of resistance in weeds to ALS inhibitors is being reported more frequently than other
herbicide groups [Chauhan et al. 2012]. In addition, there is evidence of weeds developing
107
multiple resistance to herbicides of different modes of action [Chhokar and Sharma 2008],
risking the sustainability of herbicides. Prevention of weeds developing resistance in farmers’
field is emerging as a major challenge, as new herbicides are increasingly being introduced in
India.
Another emerging challenge for weed management in India is the problem of feral crops,
such as weedy rice and wild oats [Chauhan and Johnson 2010; Singh et al. 2013]. Control of such
weeds has become very challenging due to the similarity in morphological and physiological
traits between crop (rice) and its weedy relative (weedy rice). Weedy rice has variable seed
dormancy and it displays early shattering of grain [Chauhan 2013]. Accessions of such weeds
have also been found to have greater nitrogen-use efficiency for shoot biomass than cultivated
rice [Chauhan and Johnson 2011].
There is a general acceptance that climate change is becoming a reality in India. Increase
in temperature, atmospheric greenhouse gases and water shortage have multiple impacts on
different cropping systems practiced in the country. Under high temperature, weeds will have
a competitive advantage over C3 crops [Mahajan et al. 2012]. Under water-limited conditions,
Naidu and Varshney [2011] found P. minor having an advantage over wheat at elevated CO,
concentration; both species have the C3 photosynthetic pathway. In the USA, weedy rice
responded more strongly than cultivated rice to rising C 0 2concentration with greater competitive
ability [Ziska et al. 2010], suggesting that weedy rice may become more problematic in future in
India [Chauhan etal. 2014.].
Climate change may increase the adoption of CA systems in India, in which glyphosate is
widely used as a pre-plant herbicide. A study by Ziska et al. [1999] found that the effectiveness
of glyphosate was reduced at elevated CO, concentrations, suggesting that its efficacy in
future may be reduced with C 0 2 increments. Furthermore, changes in temperature and C 0 2
_c.QncerLtr.ation.may_affe.ctahsorption, translo.cation.and efficacy. of.differentherbicidesJ'ncreased..
C 02 concentrations may also stimulate below-ground plant growth, suggesting that the problem
of perennial weeds may increase with climate change [Mahajan et al. 2012]. Broadly, there is
a need to increase research on how weeds and weed management practices may respond to the
impending changes in climate.
Opportunities
Although weeds are a challenge in the current cropping systems in India, there are many
opportunities to develop sustainable and effective weed management programmes. More studies
are needed on weed ecology and biology, especially in understanding the seed bank dynamics
in different locations and cropping systems. Better understanding of weed seed germination is
needed to manage weeds effectively. There is limited information available on the persistence
of weed seed banks under Indian conditions, especially in CA systems.
108
Weeds can be suppressed by manipulating crop density and geometry. The use of narrow
row spacing and high seeding rates, for example, can help to suppress weeds [Chauhan 2012].
However, in India, the agronomic aspects of crop competitiveness are yet to be determined as
components of IWM. Therefore, future research needs to focus on evaluation of the effect of
agronomic approaches (i.e. cultural weed control methods, such as narrow rows, high seeding
rates, weed-competitive cultivars, etc.) on weed management and crop productivity in different
regions, especially where herbicide use is limited or less effective. In addition to developing weed-
competitive cultivars, allelopathic crop cultivars may be identified and evaluated. Allelopathy
holds promise as a possible component of IWM because sorghum and pearl millet {Pennisetum
glaucum (L.) R. Br.} showed allelpathic ability to reduce weed population.
Rotations must be included in the tools to manage weeds. These could be rotation of
establishment methods (e.g., direct-seeding and transplanted rice), tillage systems (e.g., no
till, reduced-till and conventional tillage), crops (having different management practices) or
herbicides. Greater herbicide efficacy may be achieved when crops and herbicides are rotated.
However, information on the role of different rotations in suppressing the build-up of weed
populations in different cropping systems is very limited. Research on such topics will improve
weed management.
As mentioned earlier, climate change is a reality in India. Research should focus on
understanding the interaction of climate change (change in temperature, water availability and
C 0 2 concentrations) with weeds. Better understanding of weed response to climate change will
help improving weed management in the future.
• Herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops may play a promising role in weed management. There is a .
need to develop and evaluate transgenic and non-transgenic HT crops. Such crops may be used
to control weeds like Cyperus rotundus in CA systems. Parasitic weeds may also be managed
by using HT crops. In addition, there is a need to develop risk management strategies associated
with the use of HT crops.
Several weed management methods are available in different regions. However, IWM
programmes are rarely used in actual on-farm situations. In India, there is a great opportunity
for weed scientists to conduct research participated by farmers to develop IWM programs for
different crops grown in different geographical and agro-climatic regions.
Future Outlook on Developments in Weed Science

As discussed earlier, the major future challenges Indian weed scientists currently face include
developing innovative, effective, economical, resilient and environmentally safe weed
management technologies to successfully manage weeds, particularly at a time when the effects
of climate change are being felt. In this regard, greater emphasis needs to be given to the
following.
1. Assessment of on-farm losses caused by weeds: This should be scientifically pursued in

different crops and cropping systems on farmers’ fields in different agro-ecological regions
to quantify crop losses caused by weeds.
2. Weed ecology: Research should focus more on weed ecology, genetics and physiology
to increase the understanding of the processes that regulate weed-crop interactions, weed
population dynamics, adaptation and persistence under various management practices.
3. Inter-disciplinary efforts: In order to tackle the complex weed problems, research must
involve systems analysis, weed community analysis, weed traits eco-physiology, molecular
biology and genetics, assessment of pre- and post-control shifts in weed community,
herbicide resistance, issues related to transgenic plants, impact on environment and potential
benefits of weeds.
4. Integrated weed management approaches: Herbicide technology must be made
economically and ecologically affordable to farmers by innovatively integrating it with
other components of IWM.
5. Extension activity on proper herbicide use: Even though the research in India is herbicide-
based, the majority of farmers have not been benefited by herbicides. There is a need to
step up coordinated extension efforts to educate farmers on the judicious use of herbicides
in India and to integrate other weed management methods [Rao et al. 2014a]. The recent
advances in information technology may be effectively used for transferring of technology
to farmers.
6. On-farm assessment of available IWM options: The IWM options identified by
researchers must be tested in the farmers’ fields to assess their effectiveness and economic
viability. Closer linkage between research and extension is needed to popularize effective
and economical options for the benefit of farming community and to improve them with the
feedback jfcomJt.
7. Knowledge-based decision making tools: There is a need to develop a larger database
of weed ecology and biology characteristics; develop, improve and refine integrated weed
management system simulation models; and determine the utility of these models to be used
by farmers and extension personnel in IWM and to predict areas of future research.
Acknowledgements
A.N. Rao is grateful to the Government, of Karnataka for fmancial assistance
(Bhu Samrudhi). He also extends his appreciation to Dr. J.K. Ladha and Dr. SJP. Wani for their
valuable suggestions while preparing this, chapter.,
110
References
Ameena, M., V.L.G. Kumari and S. George. 2006. Integrated management of purple nutsedge (Cyperus
rotundus L.) in okra. Indian J. Weed Sci. 38: 81-85.
Arora, S. and M. Gopal. 2004. Residues pendimethalin after weed control in cabbage crop (.Brassica
oleracea var. capitata). Bulletin of Environ. Contamin.Toxicol. 73(1): 106-110.
Babu, C.K. Siddeswaran, C. Chinnusamy andR.S. Priya. 2013. Influence of imazethapyr on weed control
and yield of groundnut and its residual effect on succeeding sunflower and pearl millet. Madras
Agri. J. 100(1/3): 123-126.
Baneijee, A.K., A. Dewanji andV. Eldershaw.2012..M'fejra'a micranthaH.B.K.- apotential and economical
threat to global biodiversity with special emphasis on Indian context. Weed Sci. Soc. of Victoria
Inc., Franlcston, Australia, Developing solutions to evolving weed problems. 18th Australasian
Weeds Conf., Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 8-11 October 2012. p. 17-20,
Baneijee, H., SJ. Pramanik, K.K. Goswami and M.K. Samanta, 2008. Effect of different weed control
' measures in jute (Corchorus spp. L.). Environment and Ecol. 26(3A): 1289-1291.
Bhadauria, N., K.S. Yadav, R.L. Rajput and V.B. Singh. 2012. Integrated weed management in sesame.
Indian J. Weed Sci. 44(4): 235-237
Bhan V.M.,. Sushilkumar .and M.S.. Raghuwanshi. 1999. Weed Management in India. Indian J. Plant Prot.
17: 71- 202.
Brar, L.S. 2002. Current status of herbicide resistance in Punjab and its management strategies, pp. 6-10.
In: Proc. Intnl. Workshop on Herbicide Resistance and Zero Tillage in Rice-Wheat Cropping
System, March 4-6, CCSHAU, Hisar, India.
Buhler, D.D., M. Liebman and JJ. Obrycki. 2002. Review: theoretical and practical challenges to an IPM
approach to weed management. Weed Sci. 48: 274-280.
Bumeya, J. and V. Ramanathan. 2014. Recent climate and air pollution impacts on Indian agriculture.
PNAS 111: 16319-16324.
Chadha, K.L., D. Leela and P. Challa. 1997. Weed management in horticulture and plantation crops.
Malhotra Publishing House, New Delhi.
Chandrakar, B.L. and J.S. Urkurkar. 1993. Efficacy and economics of weed control in soybean (Glycine
max L.) under vertisols of Chattisgarh region. Indian J. Weed Sci. 25: 32-35
CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 2008. Alien Species that threaten ecosystems, Habitats or
Species (Article 8h, The United Nations.
Chauhan, B.S. 2013. Strategies to manage weedy rice-in Asia.'Crop-Prot. 484-5-1-56..
Chauhan, B.S. 2012. Weed ecology and weed management strategies for dry-seeded rice in Asia. Weed
Technol.26: 1-13.
Chauhan, B.S. and G. Mahajan. 2012. Role of integrated weed management strategies in sustaining
conservation agriculture systems. Current Sci. 103: 135-136.
Chauhan, B.S. and D.E. Johnson. 2011. Competitive interactions between weedy rice and cultivated rice
as a function of added nitrogen and the level of competition. Weed Biol. Manage. 11: 202-209.
Chauhan, B.S. and D.E. Johnson. 2010. The role of seed ecology in improving weed management
strategies in the tropics. Adv. Agron. 105: 221-262.
Chauhan, B.S., Prabhjyot-Kaur, G. Mahajan, R.K. Randhawa, H. Singh and M.S. Kang. 2014. Global
wanning and its possible impact on agriculture in India. Adv. Agron. 123: 65-121.
Chauhan, B.S., G. Mahajan, V. Sardana, J. Timsina and M.L. Jat. 2012. Productivity and sustainability
of the rice-wheat cropping system in the Indo-Gangetic Plains of the Indian subcontinent:
problems, opportunities, and strategies. Adv. Agron. 117: 315-369.
Chauhan, B.S., R.G. Singh andG. Mahajan. 2012a. Ecology and management ofweeds under conservation
agriculture: A review. Crop Prot. 38: 57-65.
Ill
Weeds and Weed Management in In d ia -A Review
Chauhan, B.S., G. Gill and C. Preston. 2006. Tillage system effects on weed ecology, herbicide activity
and persistence: Areview. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 46: 1557-1570.
Chhokar, R.S. and R.K. Sharma. 2008. Multiple herbicide resistance in littleseed canary grass (P. minor):
A threat to wheat production in India. Weed Biol. Manage. 8: 112-123.
Chinnusamy, C., P. Janaki, P. Muthukrishnan and S. Jeyaraman. 2012. Long-term herbicidal weed
management integrated with nitrogen nutrient in transplanted rice-rice cropping system of Tamil
Nadu, India. Pakistan J. Weed Sci. Res. 18 (Spl. issue): 103.
Chaudhary, G., J.D. Sharma and A.S. Yadav.2013 Productivity and economics of late-sown wheat under
different sowing methods and weed management practices. Indian J. Weed Sci. 45(4): 294-295.
Das, T.K., M.D. Tuti., R. Sharma., T. Paul and P.R. Mirjha. 2012. Weed management research in India:
An overview. Indian J. Agron. 57 (3rd IAC: Spl Issue): 148-156.
Datta, S., B. Mahapatra and P.P. Sardar. 2014. Search for a herbicide suitable for controlling submerged
aquatic weeds under Indian condition. Indian J. Animal Res. 48: 473-479.
Daily, G.C., S. Alexander, P.R. Ehrlich, L. Goulder, J. Lubchenco, P.A. Matson, et al. 1997. Ecosystem
services: benefits applied to human societies by natural ecosystems. Issues Ecol. 2: 1-16
Deokar, B.K. and L. Shetty. 2014. Growth in Indian Agriculture: Responding to Policy Initiatives since
2004-05. Economic & Political Weekly. Supplement.XLIX: 101-104.
Dhanapal, G.N., P.C. Struik, M. Udayakumar andP.C.J.M. Timmermans. 1996. Management of broomrape
(Orobanche spp.): Areview. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 175:335-359.
Dixit, A. and J.G. Varshney. 2009. Herbicide use in field crops. Directorate of Weed Science Research,
Jabalpur, India.
Dixit, A. and J.G. Varshney. 2009a. Handbook on Herbicide Recommendations. Directorate of Weed
Science Research, Jabalpur, India.
Diwakar, M.C. 2003. South Asia (continental) perspective: invasive alien species in India, pp. 47-51.
In: N. Pallewatta, J.K. Reaser and A. Gutierrez, (eds.). Prevention and management of invasive
alien species. Proc. workshop on forgoing cooperation throughout South and Southeast Asia.
Global Invasive Species Programme, Cape Town, South Africa.
Dolui, A.K., A. Som, K. Mukhopadhyay, S. Mukherjee, R. Bera, and A. Seal. 2014. Evaluation of a new
composting, method towards speedy biodegradation of water hyacinth for effective bio-resource
utilization in farmer’s level. I. Natural Product and Plant Resources! 4: 44-47.
DWSR/2013. Vision 2050.' Directorate of Weed Science Research, Jabalpur, India.
Franke, A.C., S. Singh, N. McRoberts, A.S. Nehra, S. Godara, R.K. Malik m i G. Marshall. 2007.
PHalaris minor seedbank^studies: longevity,' seedling emergence'and'seed production'as’affected'
by tillage regime. Weed Res. 47: 73-83.
FICCI, 2013. Indian Agrochemicals Industry Imperatives of Growth. Knowledge and Strategy Paper
released-at Third national Agro-chemicals Conclave, 2013. Tata Strategic Management Group
and F ederation of Indian Chambers of Commerce, New Delhi, India.
Gajbhiye, K.S. and C. Maftdal. 2006: Agro-Ecological Zones, their Soil Resource and Cropping Systems,
pp! 1-32. In: Status of farm mechanization in India, Indian Agri. Statistics Res. Institute, New
Delhi, India.
Gianessi, L. 2013. Income and Yield Benefits Driving Large Increase in Herbicide Use in India.
International'Pesticide Benefits Case Study No. 93. Crop Protection Research Institute, Crop
Life Foundation, Washington; DC, USA.
Gogoi, A.K., D.J. Rajkhowa and R. Kandali. 2001. Integrated weedcontrol in rainy season rice under
medium land situation. Indian J.. Weed Sci. 33: 18-21.
Gopal, B. 1987. Aquatic Plant Studies IVWater Hyacinth. Elsevier Publishing, New York, New York,
USA.
112
Gopal, B. and D.P. Zutshi. 1998. Fifty years of hydro biological research in India. Hydrobiologia 384:
267-290.
Govindarajan, K., C. Chinnusamy, N.K. Prabhakaran and P. Janaki. 2009. Impact analysis of integrated
weed management under irrigated eco-systems in cultivation of tropical crops in Tamil Nadu,
Southern India. 2ndIntnl. Conf. on Novel and Sustainable Weed Management in Arid and Semi-
Arid Agro-Ecosystems. Santorini, Greece.
Gupta O.P. 1987. Aquatic Weed Management - Their Menace and Control. Today & Tomorrow’s Printers
and Publishers. New Delhi. 300 pp.
Gupta, R.K. and A. Seth. 2007. Areview of resource conserving technologies for sustainable management
of the rice-wheat cropping system of Indo-Gangetic Plains. Crop Prot. 26: 436-447.
Hobbs, P. 2007. Conservation agriculture: what is it and why is it important for future sustainable food
production? J. Agric. Sci. 145: 127-137.
Hobbs, P.R. and R.K. Gupta. 2004. Problems and challenges of no-till farming for the rice-wheat systems
of the Indo-Gangetic Plains in South Asia. pp. 101-119. In: R. Lai, P. Hobbs, N. Uphoff, and
D.O. Hansen (eds.), Sustainable Agriculture and the Rice-Wheat System. Columbus, Ohio, and
New York, USA: Ohio State University and Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Itnal, C.J., B.S. Lingaraju and C.B. Kurdikeri. 1993. Effect of herbicides and cultural methods on weed
control in irrigated groundnut. Indian J. Weed Sci. 25: 27-31.
Jadhav, V.T. 2013. Yield and economics of soybean under integrated weed management practices. Indian
J. Weed Science 45(1): 39-41.
Jain, S.C. 1975. Aquatic weeds and their management in India. Hyacinth Control J. 13: 6-8.
Janaki, P., R.S. Priya and C: Chinnusamy, 2013. Field dissipation of oxyfluorfen in onion and its
dynamics in soil under Indian tropical conditions. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B, Pesticides,
Food Contaminants and Agricultural Wastes. 48(11): 941-947.
Javaid, A., T. Anjum and R. Bajwa. 2005. Biological control of Parthenium II: allelopathic effect of
Desmostachya bipinnata on distribution and early seedling growth of Parthenium hysterophorus
L. Intnl. J. Biol. Biotech. 2 (2): 459-463.
Jayan. P.R. and N. Sathyanathan.. 2012. Aquatic weed classification, environmental effects and the
management technologies for its effective control in Kerala, India. Intnl. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 5:
76-91.
Kandasamy, O.S. and S. Sanlcaran. 1997. Biological suppression of parthenium weed using competitive
crops and plants. Proc. 1st Intnl. Conf. on Parthenium Management, Univ. Agri. Sci., Dharwad,
India. 33-36.
Kathiresan, R.M. 2014. Management of invasive alien weeds under changing climate, pp. 71-79. In:
Souvenir Directorate of Weed research, Jabalpur, India.
Kathiresan, R. 2012. Utility tag, farming elements and for sustainable management of weeds in changing
climate. Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res. 18.(Spl. Issue): 271-282, .
Kalhapure, A.H. and B.T. Shete. 2012. Integrated weed management in onion. Indian J. Weed Sci. 44(2):
88-91
Kaur, M., N.K. Aggarwal, V. Kumar and R. Dhiman. 2014. Effects and Management of Parthenium
hysterophorus: A Weed of Global Significance. Intnl. Scholarly Res. Notices. 2014: Article ID
368647, 12 pp., doi: 10.1155/2014/368647.
Kaur,R., B.C. Sharma, A. Kumar and P. Kour. 2013. Nutrient uptake by chickpea + mustard intercropping
system as influenced by weed management. Indian J. Weed Sci. 45(3): 183-188.
Kolhe, S.S. 2001. Integrated weed managementin onion (Allium cepa L.). Indian J. Weed Sci.33: 26-29.
Kondap, S.M., A.N. Rao and Y.Y. Rao. 1983. Weed suppressing ability of five crops intercropped with
maize, pp. 271-275. In: Proc. 9thAsian Pacific Weed Sci. Soc. Conf., Manila, Philippines.
113
Kosaka, Y., B. Saikia, T. Mingki, H. Tag, T. Riba and K. Ando. 2010. Roadside distribution patterns of
invasive alien plants along an altitudinal gradient in Arunachal Himalaya, India. Mountain Res.
Develop. 30: 252-258.
Kulmi, G.S. andP.N. Tiwari. 2005. Integrated weed management m Asgandh (Withania somnifera Dunal).
Indian J. Weed Sci. 37: 77-80.
Kumar, B., N.T. Yaduraju, K.N. Ahuja and D. Prasad. 1993. Effect of soil solarisation on weeds and
nematodes under tropical Indian conditions. Weed Res. 33: 423-429.
Kumar, S., N.N. Angiras and R. Singh. 2006. Effect of planting and weed control methods on weed
growth and seed yield of blackgram. Indian J. Weed Sci. 38: 73-76.
Lhungdim,' J., Y. Singh, Pramod Kumar and S.K. Chongtham. 2013. Integrated weed management of
lambsquarter and nut sedge in lentil. Indian J. Weed Sci. 45(3): 192-197.
Mahajan, G., S. Singh and B.S. Chauhan. 2012. Impact of climate change on weeds in the rice-wheat
cropping system. Curr. Sci. 102: 1254-1255.
Mahajan, G., B.S. Chauhan, J. Timsina, P.P. Singh and K. Singh. 2012a. Crop performance and water- and
nitrogen-use efficiencies in dry-seeded rice in response to irrigation and fertilizer amounts in
northwest India. Field Crops Res. 134: 59-70.
Mahapatra, B.S., A. Mishra and A. Kumar. 2004. Green manuring: a basic concept and its role in weed
control. In Training manual:-Advances in weed management. G.B. Pant Univ. Agri. Technol.
Pantnagar, India, p. 31-38.
Malik, R.K. and V. Kumar. 2014. Zero tillage and management of herbicide resistance in wheat, pp.64-70.
In: Souvenir. Directorate of Weed Research, Jabalpur, India.
Malik, RK . and S. Singh. 1995. Littleseed canarygrass (Phalaris minor) resistance to isoproturon in
India. Weed Technol. 9: 419-425.
Malik, R.K., A. Yadav, S. Singh, R.S. Malik, R.S. Balyan, R.S. Banga, et al. 2002.Herbfcide Resistance
Management and Evolution of Zero-tillage- A Success Story.Research Bulletin, CCS Haryana
Agricultural University, Hissar, India. 43 pp.
Mandal, F.B. 2011.The management of alien species in India. Intnl. J. Biodiver. Conserv. 3: 467-473.
Mani, V.S., K.C. Gautam and G. Kulshrestha. 1976. Progress of aquatic weed control in India and
suggestions for further research, pp. 224-232. In: Aquatic weeds in S.E. Asia. Proc.-Regional
Seminar on Noxious Aquatic Vegetation, New Delhi. W. Junk. The Hague, Netherlands.
Mathew, G., E. Sreenivasan and J. Mathew. 1995. Integrated weed management ingrain'cowpea. Indian
J. Weed Sci. 27: 42-44.
Meekins, J.F. and B.C. McCarthy. 2U(J1. bttect of environmental variation on the invasive success of a
non-indigenous forest herb. Ecological Applications, 11: 1336-1338.
MES (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: General Synthesis.
Island Press. World Resources Institute, NE Washington, DC 20002,USA.
Mishra, J.S. 2009. Biology and management of Cuscuta species. Indian! Weed Sci. 41: 1-11
Mishra, J. S. and V.P. Singh. 2011. Effect of tillage and weed control on weed- dynamics, crop productivity,
and energy-use efficiency in rice (Oryza sativa L.)-based cropping systems in Vertisols. Indian
J. Agric. Sci. 81: 129-133.
Mooney, H.A. 2005. ’Invasive alien species: the nature of the problem, pp. 1-15. In: Invasive Alien
Species. In: H.A. Mooney, R.N. Mack, J.A. McNeely, L.E. Neville,:P.J':Sheik and J.K. Wage,
(eds.). Island Press. World Resources Institute, NE Washington, DC, USA-.
Mukherjee, I. and M. Gopal. 2005. Evaluation of fentrazamide for weed control :and estimation of its
residues in rice. Bull. Environmental Contamination and Toxicol. 74(4): 667-672;'
Mukhopadhyay, S.K. 1993. Weed research in India and future thoughts, pp. 104-109. In: Proc. 10th
Australian Weeds Conf./14th'Asian-Pacific Weed Sci. Soc. Conf., Brisbane, Queensland,
114
Australia held during 6-10 September, 1993. Published by Weed Society of Queensland,
Australia.
Mukhopadhyay, S.K. 1986. Aquatic weed control in India. Pesticides 20: 15-22.
Muniappan, R. and C.A. Viraktamath. 1993. Invasive alien weeds in the Western Ghats. Curr. Sci. 64:
555-557.
Muniappan, R., G.V.P. Reddy and A. Raman. 2009. Biological control of weeds in the tropics and
sustainability, pp. 1-16. In: R. Muniappan, G.V.P. Reddy and A. Raman (eds). Biological Control
of Tropical Weeds using Arthropods, Cambridge University Press. U.K.
Nagar, R.K., B.S. Meena and R.C. Dadheech. 2009. Effect of integrated weed and nutrient management
on weed density, productivity and economics of coriander (Coriandrum sativum). Indian J.
Weed Sci. 41: 71-75.
Naidu, V.S.G.R. 2012. Hand Book on Weed Identification. Directorate of Weed Science Research,
Jabalpur, India. 354 pp.
Naidu, V.S. and J.G. Varshney. 2011. Interactive effect of elevated C02, drought and weed competition
on carbon isotope discrimination (I3C) in wheat (Triticum aestivum) leaves. Indian J. Agric. Sci.
81: 1026-1029.
Nandal, T.R. and R. Singhal. 2002. Integrated weed management in onion (.Allium cepa L.) under
............. ‘Himachal Pradesh conditionsIndianJ. Weed Sci. 34: 72-75.
Nandeesha, M.C., P. Keshavanath, N. Basavaraja, T.J. Varghese and G.K. Srikanth. 1989. Biological
control and utilization of aquatic weeds in India: a review. J. Animal Sci. 59: 1191-1198.
Nanjappa, H.V., P. Saravanane and B.K. Ramachandrappa. 2005. Biology and management of Lantana
camara L.: A review. Agricultural Rev. 26: 272-280.
Narwal, S.S. 1994. Allelopathy in Crop Production.Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur., India. 288 pp.
Nawaz, M. and S. George. 2004. Eupatorium {Chromolaena odorata (L.) King and Robinson} biomass
as a source of organic manure in okra cultivation. J. Trop. Agri. 42: 33-34.
Parker; C. 1-993.Weed management strategy for parasitic weeds. In Integrated weed management for
sustainable agriculture. Proc. Indian Soc. Weed Sci. Intnl. Symp., Hisar, India. 18-20 November
1993. p. 49-53.
Patel, R.H., J. Shroff, S. Dutta. andTG. Meisheri. 2005. Weed dynamics as influenced by soil solarization
-Areview. Agricultural Rev. 26 (4): 295-300.
Pimentel, D., S. McNair, J. Janecka, J. Wightman, C. Simmonds, C.O”Connell, et. al. 2001. Economic
and environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions. Agriculture, Ecosystems
& Environment 84(1): 1-20.
Planning Commission. 2013. Planning Commission (Government of India) 2013.Vol. 1. Twelfth Five
Year Plan (2012-2017). Faster, More Inclusive and Sustainable Growth. SAGE Publications
India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India.
Porwal, M.K. 1995. Integrated weed management in garlic (Allium sativum) under vertisols. Indian J.
Weed Sci. 27: 16-18.
Punia, S.S. 2014. Biology and control measures of Orobanche. Indian J. Weed Sci. 46 (1): 36-51.
Raghubanshi, A.S., L.C. Rai, J.P. Gaur and J.S. Singh. 2005. Invasive alien species, and biodiversity in
India. CuiavSci. 88 (4): 539-540.
Rao, A.N. and J.K. Ladha' 2013. Economic weed management approaches for rice in Asia.'pp. 500-509.
In: Baki Hj. Bakar, D. Kumiadie and Tjitrosoedirdjo (eds.). Proc. 24thAsian-Pacific Weed Sci.
Soc. Conf., Bandung, Indonesia. 22-25 October, 2013.
Rao, A. N. andA.Nagamani. 2013. Eco-efficient weed management approaches for rice in tropical Asia.
Proc. 4th Tropical Weed Science Conf. Weed Management and Utilization in the Tropics held
during January 23-25,2013, The Empress Hotel, Chiang Mai, Thailand, p. 78-87.
115
Rao, A.N. and J.K. Ladha. 2011. Possible approaches for ecological weed management in direct-seeded
rice in a changing world, pp. 444-453. In: Proc. 23rd Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society
Conference, 26-29 September 2011, The Sebel, Cairns, Australia.
Rao, A.N. and A. Nagamani. 2010. Integrated Weed Management in India-Revisited. Indian J. Weed. Sci.
42: 1-10.
Rao,-A..N.and A.Nagamani. 2007. Available technologies and future research challenges for managing
weeds in dry-seeded rice in India. In: Proc. of the 2 151Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society Conf.
2ndto 6th October 2007, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Rao, A.N. and S.V.R. Shetty. 1983. Some observation on ecological approaches for managing weeds in
Indian Semiarid Tropical Agroecosystems. Proc. 9thAsian-Pacific Weed Sci. Soc.Conf., Manila,
Philippines, p. 181-191.
R ao, A .N . and S.V.R. Shetty. 1981. Investigation on w eed suppressing ability o f sm other cropping system s
in relation to canopy developm ent and light interception. Proc. 8th A sian-Pacific W eed Sci. Soc.
C onference, B angalore, India, p. 357-364.
Rao, A.N., S.P. Wani, M, Ramesha and J.K. Ladha. 2015. Weeds and Weed Management of Rice in
Karnataka State, India. Weed Technol. January-March. 29(1): 1-17.
Rao, A.N., S.P. Wani and J.K. Ladha. 2014. Weed,management research in India - an analysis of the past
and outlook for future^ pp. 1-26 . In: Souvenir (1989-2014). DWR Publication No. 18. Directorate
of Weed Research, Jabalpur, India.
Rao, A.N., R.K. Malik, A. Yadav, and J.K. Ladha. 2014a. -Strengthening farmers’ knowledge for better
weed management in. developing countries, pp. 991-405. In: Chauhan, B.S. and G. Mahajan
(eds.). Recent Advances in Weed Management. Springer, USA.
.Rao, A.N., D.E. Johnson, B. Sivaprasad, J.K. Ladha and A.M. Mortimer. ,2007. Weed management in
direct-seeded rice. Adv. Agron. 93: 153-255.
Rao, A.N., S.M. Kondap; K.R; Krishna andG.P. Reddy. 1982. Investigation on the competitive ability of
.certain.crops..against, purple nvAse.dgQ, (Cyperus rotundus h-)- Indian J. Weed. Sci. 14: 124-126.
Rizvi, SJ. and V. Rizvi. 1992. Allelopathy; Basie and Applied Aspects: Chapman & Hall, London, U.K.
480 pp.
Rameshwar, S.C., G.D... Sharma and S. Rana. 2002. Evaluation'of ..herbicides for. weed control and
economics in onion (Allium cepa L.) under, cold desert region.of Himachal Pradesh. Indian J.
Weed Sci. 34; 68-71.
Rathi, J.P.S., A.N. Tewari and M. Kumar. 2004. Integrated weed management in blackgram (Vigna mungo
L7)rlndian-X-Weed Sci. 36: 218-220.
Rathore, S.S., K. Sheldiawat, O.P. Premi, B.KvKandpal and J.S. Chauhan.2014. Biology and management
of the fast-emerging threat of broomrape in rapeseed-mustard. Weed Biol. Manage. 14:145-158.
Reddy, C.S. 2008. Catalogue of invasive alien flora of India. Life Sci. J.-5 (2): 84-89.
Rodell, M., I. Ve.licigna and J.S. Famiglietti. 2009. Satellite-based estimates of'groundwater depletion in
India. Nature (London) 460: 999-1002.
Sangeetha, C. and P. Bhaskar. 2015. Allelopathy in.weed management: A critical review. African J. Agric.
Res. 10: 1004-1015.
Sardana, V., S. Singh and P. Sheoran. 2006. Efficacy and economics of weed management-practices in
blackgram (Vigna mungo L.) under rain-fed conditions..Indian J. Weed Sci. 38: 77-80.
Saxena, K.G. 1991. Biological invasions in the Indian subcontinent: review of invasion plants, pp. 53-
73. In: PS. Ramakrishnan. (ed.), Ecology, of Biological Invasions in the Tropics. International
Scientific Publications, New Delhi.
Sekar, K.C., R. Manikandan and S. Srivastava. 2012. Invasive alien plants of Uttarakhand Himalaya.
Proc.Natnl. Acad. Sci., India. Section B, Biological Sciences. 82: 375-383.
116
Sharma, A.R. and V.R Singh. 2014. Integrated weed management in conservation agricultural sustems.
Sharma, G.R and A.S. Raghubanshi. 2009. Plant invasions along roads: a case study from central
highlands, India. J. Environ. Monitor, and Assess. 157: 191-198.
Sharma, R., S.S. Pahuja, R.S. Balyan and R.K. Malik. 2002. Effect of sulfonylurea herbicides applied
alone and tank mix with metribuzin on weeds in wheat and their residual effect on succeeding
crop of sorghum. Indian J. Weed Sci. 34(3/4): 178-183.
Sharma, B.D., N.P. Balakrishnan, R.R. Rao and P.K. Hajra. 1993. Flora of India. J. Bot. Survey, India 1
(Preface). 1-2. 1
Shekara, B.G. and H.V. Nanjappa. 1993. Nutrients uptake by crop and weeds and economics of different
weed control treatments in soybean. Indian J. Weed Sci. 25: 40-43.
Shinde, S.H., V.S. Pawar, G.B. Suryawanshi, N.R. Ahire and U.S. Surve. 2003. Integrated weed
management studies in pigeonpea + pearl millet intercropping (2:2) system. Indian J. Weed Sci.
35:90-92.
Singh, R. 2006. Effect of cropping sequence, seed rate and weed management on weed growth and yield
of Indian mustard in western Rajasthan. Indian J. Weed Sci. 38: 69-72.
Singh, R. and B. Singh. 2004. Effect of irrigation time and weed management practices on weeds and
wheat yield. Indian J. Weed Sci. 36: 25-27.
Singh, S. and V. Nigam. 2014. Study on sustainable management of fisheries and aquatic weeds of
Govindgarh .Lake with reference to some hydro biological parameters, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh,
India. J. Environ. Res. Develop. 8: 919-933.
Singh, S.P. and R.M. Kumar. 1999. Efficacy of single and sequential application of herbicides on weed
control in transplanted rice. Indian J. Weed Sci.31: 222-224.
Singh, VP. and G. Singh.2001. Weed control studies in spring rice (Oryza sativa L.) under rainfed low
Valley situation of Uttaranchal. Indian J. Weed Sci. 33: 52-55.
Singh, C:M7, N;MvAngiras and S; Kumar. 1996. Weed Management. MD Publications, New Delhi.
Singh, P.K., O. Prakash and B.P. Singh. 2001. Studies on the effect of n-fertilization and weed control
techniques on weed suppression, yield and nutrients uptake in sesame (Sesamum indicum),
Singh, R., B. Singh and K.N.K. Chauhan.1999. Productivity and economics of Indian mustard (Brassica
junced) as influenced by varieties and different weed control treatments. Indian J. Weed Sci. 31:
138-141..
Singh, S.B., T.K. Das and G. Kulshrestha. 2013. Persistence of herbicidefenoxaprop ethyl and its acid
metabolite in soil andwheat crop under Indian tropical conditions. J. Environ. Sci. and. Health,
PartB: Pesticides, Food Contaminants and Agricultural Wastes 48: 324-330.
Singh, S.N., R.K. Singh and B. Singh. 2001a. Herbicidal-cum-integrated approach of weed management
in spring planted sugarcane. Indian J. Weed Sci. 33: 136-138.
Singh, B., M.S. Bhullar, U.S. Walia, S.K. Randhawa and R.P. Phutela. 2010. Weed control in carrot
(Daucas carota L.): bio-efficacy and residues of pre-emergence herbicides. Indian J. Ecol.
37(2): 145-148.
Singh, K., V. Kumar, Y.S. Saharawat, M. Gathala, J.K. Ladha and B.S. Chauhan. 2013. Weedy rice: an
emerging threat for direct-seeded rice production systems in India. J. Rice Res. 1: 106.
Sondhia, S. 2014.Herbicides residues in soil, water, plants and non-targeted organisms and human health
implications: an Indian perspective. Indian J. Weed Sci. 46(1): 66-85.
Sondhia, S and A. Dixit. 2012. Bioefficacy and persistence ofethoxysulfuron in rice. Oryza 49: 178-182.
Sondhia, S. and J.G. Varshney. 2009. Herbicides. Satish Serial Publication House, New Delhi. 567 pp.
Srivastava, A. and R. Singh. 2009. Key management issues of Forest-Invasive Species in India. Indian J.
Environ. Edu. 9: 16-24.
117
Sukhadia, N.M., B.B. Ramani and M.G. Dudhatra. 2002. Response of onion (Allium cepa L.) to methods
of sowing and weed management practices. Indian J. Weed Sci. 34: 76-79.
Sushilkumar. 2011. Aquatic weeds problems and management in India. Indian! Weed Sci.. 43: 118-138.
Sushilkumar. 2006. Economic benefits in biological control ofParthenium by Mexican beetle, Zygogramma
bicolorata Pallister (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in India. Annals Entomol. 24 (1&2): 75-78.
Sushilkumar and P. Ray. 2011 Evaluation of augmentative release of Zygogramma bicolorata Pallister
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) for biological control of Parthenium hysterophorus. L. Crop Prot.
30: 587-591.
Tanveer, A., A. Khaliq, H.H. Ali, G. Mahajan and B.S. Chauhan 2015. Interference and management of
parthenium: The world’s most important invasive weed. Crop Prot. 68: 49-59.
Tewari, A.N., S.N. Tiwari., J.P.S. Rathi.,B. Singh and A.K. Tripathi. 2003. Effect of cultural and chemical
methods on weed growth and grain yield of dwarf pea. Indian J. Weed Sci. 35: 49-52.
Trivedi, R.K. 1998. Aquatic weeds based wastewater treatment plants in India. In: Management and
ecology of aquatic plants. Proc. of the 10th EWRS Intnl. Symp. on Aquatic Weeds, Lisbon,
Portugal. 21-25 September 1998.
Varshney, C.K. and K.P. Singh. 1976. A survey of the aquatic weed problems in India: Aquatic weeds in
S.E. Asia. pp. 31-41 .In: C.K. Varshney and J. Rzoska (eds.). Proc. Regional Seminar on Noxious
Aquatic Vegetation, New Delhi. W. Junk B.V. Publication, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Vijaykumar, B., M.N. Reddy and M. Shivashankar. 1995. Integrated weed management in pigeonpea-
groundnut intercropping. Indian J. Weed Sci. 27: 12-15.
Viraktamath, C.A. 2002. Alien invasive insect and mite pests and weeds in India and their management.
Micronesica (Suppl.) 6: 67-83.
Vitousek, P.M. et al. 1997. Introduced species: a significant component of human-caused global change.
N.Z.J.Ecol.21: 1-16.
Wahab, S. 2005. Management of Parthenium-through an integrated approach initiatives, achievements
and-research opportunities-in India. Proc. 2nd Intnl. Conf. on Parthenium Management. Univ.
Agri. Sci., Bangalore, India, p. 36-43.
Wiley, M.J.R., W. Gorden, S.W. Waite, and T. Powles. 1984. The relationship between aquatic macrophyte
and sportfish production in Illinois ponds: A simple model. North Amer. J. Fisheries Manage.
4(1): 111-119.
Williamson, B.G. 1990. Allelopathy, Koch’s postulates, and the neck riddle, pp. 143-164. ■/«:•J.B. Grace
and D. Tilman (eds.). Perspective on Plant Competition. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA.
Yaduraju, N.T. 2012. Weed management perspectives for India in the changing agriculture scenario in’the’-
country. Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res. 18 (Spl. Issue): 703-710.
Yaduraju, N.T. and R.M. Kathiresan, 2003. Invasive weeds in the tropics. Proc. 19thAsian-Pacific Weed
Sci. Soc. Conf., Manila, Philippines. Vol. I: 59-68.
Ziska, L.H., J.R. Teasdale and J.A. Bunce. 1999. Future atmospheric carbon dioxide may increase
tolerance to glyphosate. Weed Sci. 47: 608-615.
Ziska, L.H., M.B. Tomecek and D.R. Gealy. 2010. Competitive interactions between cultivated and red
rice as a function of recent and projected increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Agron. J. 102:
118-123.
118

Antennas and Waves Communication Engineering

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Antennas and Waves Communication Engineering

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Weed-.ScienceAn the.

Weeds and Weed Management in India - A Review

Table 1. Global comparison of area, production and yield of principal crops.*.

Area Production Yield !'i Proiliii-iimi

Chieckpea 10-50 Pea 10-50

Important Weed Species and their Management

Whfiii Rio. Soyabean OMckJIlifSll' 15 &

Weed Management in Major Crops

I ( "*p Weed iii;in ;i" i'iM riil Reference

Blackgram Pendimethalin 0.50; HW 45 DAS Kumar et al. 2006

Lentil Pendimethalin 1.0 Pre; HW 45 DAS Lhungdim et al. 2013

Coriander Pendimethalin 1.0 Pre; HW 45 DAS Nagar et al. 2009

jCowp.ea Pendimethalin 0.75 Pre: HW 35DAS . Mathew et al. 1995

Garlic r Oxyfluorfen 0.15 or pendimethalin 1.0 Pre; Porwal 1995

Groundnut Pendimethalin or alachlor 1.0 Pre; HW 30 DAS Itnal et al. 1993

Onion Pedimethalinl'.5 Pre; HW: 60 DAT Rameshwar et al. 2002

Crop*' Wi/i-tJ llklllirgcnllnt y J lltl^ H fe re n c e

Chickpea and Fluchloralin 1.0 PPI; intercrop: Kaur et al. 2013

Weeds of Forest Lands

Weeds of Aquatics and Public Amenity Areas

1lithiiidi' | Type ofweeds i

Herbkidi Type of weeds Kate

Weeds of Wastelands and Roadsides

Weed Management in Conservation Agriculture Systems

Innovative Strategies for Managing Weeds

Herbicide Use, Residues, Resistance and Tolerant Crops in India

Herbicide Residues in Soil and Food-chain

Research in India indicated the half-lives of imadazoline, phenylureas, sulfonylureas, triazines,

Herbicide-Tolerant Transgenic Crops

Herbicide Resistance in Weeds

Weed Science Research in India

India and future directions.

Emerging Challenges and Opportunities for Weed Management

Future Outlook on Developments in Weed Science

1. Assessment of on-farm losses caused by weeds: This should be scientifically pursued in

Anda mungkin juga menyukai